This is http://www.essayz.com/a8701011.htm         
Previous-Essay      <== This-Essay ==>     Following-Essay
Click HERE on this line to find essays via Your-Key-Words.
{Most frequent wordstarts of each essay will be put here.}
==========================================================
              %INTEGRATIVE SCIENTISTS IDEALS VALUES 870101

An integrative understanding of arationally wise and
humane  behavior  can  not be based  upon  a  compulsively
objective analysis  by non-participants in such  behavior.
Such  an integrative understanding will involve a personal
awareness of the dynamics  of  participation which in turn
entails   an   integration   of   objective,    emotional,
physiological,   rational  and  spiritual  involvement  in
intimate  communal  behavior.    Any  exclusive rule which
rules out knowledge through participation in any  of these
modes of consciousness---promotes ignorance that tends  to
lead to disintegration rather than to integration.

     Rules  which  require  ignorance  are  not  as  fully
integrative as  it  is  possible  to  be.    Knowledge  is
fundamentally  integrative  in character and ignorance  is
the   absence  of  knowledge.    Some  knowledge  is  more
integrative  than other knowledge;  some ignorance is more
disintegrative than other ignorance.   It is difficult  to
make  the case that some knowledge is  disintegrative  and
that  some  ignorance  is  integrative,   just  as  it  is
difficult  to make the case that in no case does knowledge
lead to disintegration, or that in no case does  ignorance
lead to integrative behavior.

     Rules  which  require emotional detachment as  always
being  essential to the development of reliable  knowledge
are  thus  properly open to critical appraisal to  see  if
they  really lead to that which they are presumed to  lead
to.  Are  those rules to be honored and obeyed even in the
critical appraisal of  their worth?  For what reason?   It
would seem the height  of bias  to claim that the critical
appraisal of a rule should be presided  over  by  the rule
itself!   The critical appraisal would better be served by
observing whether or not the  actual behavior of those who
honor   the  rule  promotes  both  personal  and  communal
integrity in  the objective,   emotional,   physiological,
rational and spiritual lives of those affected by the rule
being  honored.    Rules  and people who presume to  place
themselves  above  being critically appraised in terms  of
integrative  considerations  are  properly  considered  as
especially appropriate foci for critical appraisal---based
upon transcendent integrative ideals, values, concepts and
perspectives.

     Not  all statements are true,  some are false,   even
when  many people affirm them to be true.   Not  all  true
statements  can  be shown to be true  objectively.    Some
objectively  true statements are of little  value.    Some
valuable  statements are true even though not  objectively
grounded.  Some statements which people regard as false or
as  of little value are potentially very valuable  because
they are true in  a  profound  way.   Collusions,  taboos,
repressions, fears, threats, etc.  confuse the differences
between  true and false statements,  between valuable  and
not  so valuable statements.   What is the nature of  true
statements?

     True  statements  help  people  to  integrate   their
personal  experiences  into a coherent whole  which  makes
sense  and  has  meaning.   True statements are  tools  of
integration  and  are  used  by people  with  integrity to
promote further integration.

     True statements help people to promote integration by
helping  people achieve balance between complementary  and
conflicting   perspectives,   assumptions,    convictions,
paradigms,  attitudes, approaches; and are valuable to the
extent that they help in these ways.

     Taboos  and collusions may obscure the truth of  true
statements,   but their truth can still be  recognized  by
people   who   honestly  seek   and   promote   integrity.
Statements  which are not "objectively true"  due  to  the
inhibitions  of  taboos  and  collusions which  block  the
required consensus, may be powerfully true even so.  Often
universal  consensus is not possible  because  taboos  and
collusions stand in the way.  Many truths are invisible to
objectivists,   and they can  not find the way to  achieve
comprehensive integration of all their experiences; and so
they tend to devalue those experiences  which they can not
integrate into a  coherent whole under the constraints  of
their collusions and taboos.

     The  proof  of  the truth of a statement  is  not  in
consensus, for collusions generate false consensuses.  The
proof of the truth of a statement is in how well it  helps
honest people to promote personal  and  communal integrity
and  balance.    False and misleading statements  tend  to
promote disintegration, the  breakdown of a coherent sense
of  what is real and how those things which are  real  are
related.    True statements help people develop a coherent
sense  of what is  real and inter-related for  people  and
communities with integrity.

                                                                                                                               
                         (c) 2005 by Paul A. Smith in      
                    (On Being Yourself, Whole and Healthy)  
                                                                                                                               
==========================================================